If a person is not bothered by vignetting or weak corners and color shift, their definition of "it works" for them may be rooted in smearing as the only detrimental criteria for whether or not it works and could include a host of lenses to choose from.

OTOH, if the criteria is WO sharp into the corners without color shift or much vignetting, the list could be rather small. Also, if the application is centrally oriented images, there may be little concern for the corners compared to someone shooting landscapes that wants to extract corner detail.

The list would be largely predicated upon the definition of "works". Not much help I know, but it might help if you want to clarify what it is that you are interested in finding as options to your criteria for "what works".

shelt wrote:
I would think so. It's definitely a bit funky at f/2 (especially the OOF areas), but certainly looks pretty solid overall. We have horrible haze and overcast today; I'll try to put a few infinity shots up once things clear up...

RustyBug wrote:
NOT an RF ... go with an SLR that is renowned for great corners. 24x36 is still 24x36 and the trig of the RF lens being TOO FREAKIN' CLOSE is working against you to get good corners AND even illumination on WA/UWA.

The RF being THAT CLOSE can be sweet for Zone A, but NOT SO MUCH for Zone C corners.

Forgive me all for taking some time in uploading some new photos, for those that are at all curious about non-Sony FE lenses on the A7R.

In this prior post I shared some images taken with the Zeiss 15mm Distagon ZM, via Novoflex adapter. Clearly there is a yellow bar, possibly a reflection of something. I think it may be the bayonet contacts.

Now, I am using the Phigment Tech adapter which does have pins to communicate with the body.

But as you can see below, even with this adapter which I thought might ameliorate some of the blocky yellow reflection or bar or whatever it is, the ZM 15mm is not well-liked by the A7R. Or, perhaps they share mutual spite.

I'm fairly unhappy about this, as the ZM 15mm is a very good lens but this is a difficult issue to deal with.

This is an off-white wall I photographed, The light is more intense on the right side.

I need to keep working with the A7R to overcome the mounting (pun intended) frustration with it. Not in just using non-native lenses with it, but in understanding it better and harnessing that fantastic sensor it has.

That's pretty much what the Voightlander-M 15mm f/4.5 looks like too on the A7R. Lens cast correction can get rid of almost all of it, especially if you create an LCC with the same conditions every time you shoot a scene.

Sometimes I wonder if this whole generation of "mirrorless" cameras introduced since 2009 is merely a race to see who can create the camera system with the shortest registration distance, coupled with the most detestable small lens performance, for the unspoken hopes of torpedoing mischievous, experimental types like those that frequent the alt forum.

Hey guys, not sure if anyone cares any more now that we know most wider RF lenses don't play so nicely on the a7/a7R.... but I finally got around to processing a 24-lens a7R vs. M9 infinity shootout I did a while back. 21 of the lenses were rangefinder with the majority being 50mm and wider, plus the two FE primes, and the RX1 thrown in for an added data point.

Most lenses performed better or more 'naturally' on the M9. The widest decent non-native lens were the CV12 and 15 with very similar edge performance on both cameras, though both also have very strong vignetting and color shift. The CV35/1.2 II was the widest and least problematic. The 21 Lux also wasn't too bad, but lags in the outer zone until around f/5.6. The FE55 bests the other 50s for across frame consistency, though the Lux showed higher central performance while the ZM50P was decent, but seemingly a bit lower on the resolution scale. Everything longer than 50 was pretty much a draw, as would be expected...

Maybe a reason I didn't post it sooner was that it pretty much confirmed, upon initial inspection, that the a7/a7R weren't going to fill any immediate need for me, and I lost interest. I'm still excited about the prospects of this system and mirrorless full frame in general. But for the time being I will wait it out on the sideline as the system fills out. If anything, the RX1 is ever more appealing...

sirimiri wrote:
Forgive me all for taking some time in uploading some new photos, for those that are at all curious about non-Sony FE lenses on the A7R.

In this prior post I shared some images taken with the Zeiss 15mm Distagon ZM, via Novoflex adapter. Clearly there is a yellow bar, possibly a reflection of something. I think it may be the bayonet contacts.

I remember your post at page 147, post 17, of the building against the sky where you got those yellow bars. The bayonet contacts?
Now, I am using the Phigment Tech adapter which does have pins to communicate with the body.(...)
This is an off-white wall I photographed, The light is more intense on the right side.

I don't have the Phigment adapter so can't tell but does it cover the gold plated contacts properly? Do you get any of this yellow bars/bands/reflections/whatever when using any other lens but the 15mm? What with native lenses?

I appreciate your test very much ... particularly as you pointed out the "built-in" corrections of the Leica to correct for the projected image vs. non-corrected for the Sony (understanding the rationale @ real world use).

My take away is that it is confirming that the steep angles for such short distances requires correction ... just a matter of who's doing it & where it is occurring @ mfr in camera vs. user in post

For me, this will keep me in the 35mm longer registration format glass as 24x36 is still 24x36, but the angles will be more relaxed than if shooting with the closer registration RF glass ... i.e. the physics/trig remain the challenge of pushing varying lightwaves through a prism and getting them to remain properly aligned with angles of incidence/refraction as steep as UWA with RF incurs.

This isn't to say that it doesn't also occur (to a lesser degree) with non-RF UWA glass, but for me it places a dose of "reality check" at the physics of the projected image angles with prism based sensors. From that, I can regard the necessary correction as product of the natural physics associated with the projection through a prism, rather than be aggravated by the shortcomings of the camera when things aren't as I want them to be.

Can a library of lcc images be made to be used with c1, cornerfix, and lr flat field plug in?

efgm wrote:
That's pretty much what the Voightlander-M 15mm f/4.5 looks like too on the A7R. Lens cast correction can get rid of almost all of it, especially if you create an LCC with the same conditions every time you shoot a scene.

rscheffler wrote:
Hey guys, not sure if anyone cares any more now that we know most wider RF lenses don't play so nicely on the a7/a7R.... but I finally got around to processing a 24-lens a7R vs. M9 infinity shootout I did a while back. 21 of the lenses were rangefinder with the majority being 50mm and wider, plus the two FE primes, and the RX1 thrown in for an added data point.

Most lenses performed better or more 'naturally' on the M9. The widest decent non-native lens were the CV12 and 15 with very similar edge performance on both cameras, though both also have very strong vignetting and color shift. The CV35/1.2 II was the widest and least problematic. The 21 Lux also wasn't too bad, but lags in the outer zone until around f/5.6. The FE55 bests the other 50s for across frame consistency, though the Lux showed higher central performance while the ZM50P was decent, but seemingly a bit lower on the resolution scale. Everything longer than 50 was pretty much a draw, as would be expected...

Maybe a reason I didn't post it sooner was that it pretty much confirmed, upon initial inspection, that the a7/a7R weren't going to fill any immediate need for me, and I lost interest. I'm still excited about the prospects of this system and mirrorless full frame in general. But for the time being I will wait it out on the sideline as the system fills out. If anything, the RX1 is ever more appealing...

Mark: that image looks great. Love the mood. The WATE is one I would have liked to try (and actually do know someone ~2 hours drive away with one...) because so far it seems like one of the few that works without much, if any, compromise.

ulrikft2: I was also somewhat surprised by the 12 and 15. The 15 though does have very strong color shift and I'm not certain it will clean up without leaving some artifacts. I didn't get that far into the testing. Hopefully it works out acceptably! At least the cost is reasonable.

Ulrik, I was a bit surprised with Rons CV15 images. I wore it a day on the A7 which supposedly is a bit better than the A7r. I usually had to do some slight cropping for them to become usable to me and I think I have lower threshold than many here at FM. Smearing, or perhaps just soft corners, were my main complaints. I will revisit, doing more F/8 (best?) to see if I underestimated that lens. I put it on sale but the tiny size and great build of that lens wants me to keep it.